Since January of 2008, this nationally recognized blog has been dedicated to following the very latest news regarding presidential pardons and the pardon power (or clemency powers) as exercised in each state. Reader comments are certainly welcomed but a premium will be placed on civility, relevance and originality. Please refrain from extended copying and pasting.

TERMS TO KNOW

AMNESTY - A general or group pardon that is usually granted before conviction. This power is most commonly associated with post-war clemency, for draft evasion, sedition or other violations of selective service laws. Amnesties may or may not be conditional

CLEMENCY - At the federal level, this is a broad term which is interpreted to include all of the other terms defined in this section. Sometimes, "clemency" is described as "the pardon power," which is acceptable, so long as it is understood that, formally speaking, a pardon is one of several forms of clemency. Clemency powers can be found in all three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial). At the state level, "clemency" is sometimes meant to be synonymous with "commutation." Thus "clemency" is used to release indivduals from prison. "Pardons" in such states are used to restore the civil rights of those who have already served their time.

COMMUTATION - A reduction in the severity of a punishment that is commonly confused with a pardon. Commutations reduce the length of a sentence or the amount of a fine. Perhaps the most high-profile commutations are those that change a death sentence to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Commutations can be controversial if the "reduction" is, arguably, not a reduction. Imagine a 2-year sentence being commuted to a $900,000 fine. Is that really a reduction in the severity of the punishment? Commutations can have conditions attached. Supreme Court decisions appear to suggest that commutations of sentence cannot be refused. Although there was a time when commutations were granted more frequently than pardons, they are very rarely granted today.

EXPUNGEMENT - Each state is free to define expungement as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of expungement. See also "sealing" (below)

PARDON - The removal of all disability or punishment. Pardons may be granted before or after conviction. Today, they are usually granted in order to restore civil rights (the right to vote, hold public office, participate in a jury, own a firearm, etc.). Pardons can have conditions attached. There has been a steady decline in the granting of pardons since 1900 whether one looks at the raw number of pardons, the percentage of applications that result in pardons or the percentage of presidential clemency decisions which result in pardons. There has, however, been a more accelerated decline since the late 1960s.

REMISSION - Most often, remissions were devices used to remove fines and forfeitures. In some instances, however, the word remit was used to simply remove (as opposed to reducing) a portion of a sentence. Today, federal clemency statistics do not even count remissions as a separate category of clemency decisions.

REPRIEVE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Sometimes used as a synonym for "stay." See Respite, below.

RESPITE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Typically, respites are granted for a specific number of days (30 to 60) but they have often been followed by additional respites and have also been granted in an entirely open-ended fashion (as in, "We will get back to you, when we can."). Today, the word "reprieve" is more likely to be used for an act of clemency that delays punishment.

SEALING - Each state is free to define sealing as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of sealing. See also "expungement" (above).

Saturday, October 19, 2013

The typical act of clemency (state or federal) is a pardon, which simply restores the civil rights of an offender. The typical recipient is an average Joe, not "connected" to anyone, or of particular importance. He / she has just about always committed a minor, non-violent offense years (sometimes decades) ago. They have served their time (if a jail/prison sentence was even associated with their conviction) and they have long integrated back into society as a law-abiding, productive member. In sum - quite contrary to the general feel of your local newspaper, and the hot air spewing fro the mouths of politicians bent on cheap opportunism - no one is being sprung from prison (much less violent felons) and tossed in the streets to kill your children. The judgement of judges and juries are not being overturned. There is no "controversy" to exploit.

Take Illinois Governor Pat Quinn - who governs in an environment as pressurized as any governor in America. Quinn has made an admirable effort to address the backlog of clemency petitions left by former governor (and current federal prison inmate Rod Blagojevich). Altogether, Quinn has granted 994 petitions, a number that includes 973 pardons. Pardon controversies ? ZERO. And where is the reporting on that?

On the other hand, there another face of clemency, the face that just about always gets the attention (however sloppy) of the media: the tough cases, the cases where reasonable people can disagree, and idiots can skew the facts just enough to smear a political opponent, or generate funds from the most volatile donors. If Governor Quinn sticks to his guns, he will eventually step into this territory. Many governors do. But they tend to do so at the last minute, as their terms are expiring, and after years of inactivity / neglect. Thus, they exacerbate the potential for controversy, not so much by use and abuse, as by disuse and stupidity.

Katie Shephard, a law student at Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, is calling on Quinn to address a "pending petition" for one Robert Taylor. Taylor is one of the so-called Dixmoor Five, "teenagers who were wrongfully convicted of rape and murder and then exonerated after spending nearly two decades in prison." Shephard notes Taylor "still has a related felony conviction on his record" (violation of a bail bond, when he was 19 years old). Writes Shephard:

After spending almost 20 years in prison, Robert and the other five boys were proven innocent when DNA taken from the victim’s body was matched to a known sex offender. At age 34, Robert was released from prison and awarded a certificate of innocence. Robert’s record is now clear of the rape and murder convictions. But the jumping bail conviction remains.

The piece also makes these powerful, noteworthy observations:

In July 2012, we represented Robert at a clemency hearing before the Prisoner Review Board, which makes a recommendation to the governor. We asked for a full pardon for Robert for the bail bond conviction.
Unique and extraordinary circumstances such as Robert’s are exactly why the governor has the power to pardon. Clemency is about mercy when the criminal justice system is too harsh. It provides flexibility for situations like Robert’s where technically, yes, he broke the law, but extraordinary circumstances greatly diminish his moral culpability.
This remaining conviction hinders Robert’s ability to move on with his life. Many jobs are not an option for Robert. In fact, Robert lost his first job after his release because he failed a background check. Each time he fills out a job application, he suffers the embarrassment of disclosing this conviction. It is a painful reminder of his two decades of incarceration and injustice and limits his ability to provide for his one-year-old son.